Maher was comically commenting on Trump's offer to pay $5 million to Obama's charity of choice if Obama releases his college records.

This lawsuit news is, of course, Trump, once again, hogging — orangutanning — the media spotlight. Fine. I don't care. But to actually file a lawsuit is: 1. An offense against free speech, and 2. An irresponsible appropriation of the public wealth that will be consumed processing the lawsuit.

“I don’t think he was joking. He said it with venom. That was venom. That wasn’t a joke. In fact, he was nervous when he said it. It was a pathetic delivery,” Trump said on Fox News.

Speaking of pathetic... go away, Donald. And take your hair with you when you leave.

Actually I see viable lawsuit here, But not by Trump.First he needs to name the charity, possibly www.nads.org/ the National association for Downs Syndrome (NADS). You see when he offered to give the money to a charity, that's when it stopped being funny...

I tend to agree that a reasonable person wouldn't believe Maher's "offer" was earnest. It's a closer call in this case, however, because of the specific mention of giving the money to charity. That aspect of it, at least, bespeaks a serious offer. If one is joking, why mention the charity getting the money?

A soft bigotry causes people to underestimate others: judging Donald Trump because of his choice of hairstyle blinds one to the brilliance of the man.

I understand in Business travel circles, in this lousy economy, Trump's hotelier staff and service for their guests is astonishing, personal, anticipating needs and sprinting the extra mile to make their trips feel effortless.

Trump is in the same sweet spot that Charley Sheen was in. Charley's cocaine binges with porn stars only burnished his reputation as a party animal. Trump makes his living as a ham fisted, overbearing tycoon. This only adds lustre to that reputation. If Trump replied to his critics with irony and deferential gestures, it would be the end of his career.

This lawsuit news is, of course, Trump, once again, hogging — orangutanning — the media spotlight. Fine. I don't care. But to actually file a lawsuit is: 1. An offense against free speech, and 2. An irresponsible appropriation of the public wealth that will be consumed processing the lawsuit.

I can see (2), but from what you've put in the post, I don't see (1) at all. It sounds like this is an action in contract. You don't get out of a valid contract by claiming that "free speech" means it doesn't count.

And if it's not a valid contract for whatever reason, then one imagines it will get thrown out at a pretty early stage, on a motion to dismiss. The facts are all public, so I can't imagine there's going to be much dispute in the facts alleged.

Unfortunately, this seems like it would be a pretty cut and dried case in which the only question is whether a valid contract was formed. Our discovery system is mad, and helps drive up the costs of litigation to astronomical heights, but this is one case in which it seems like it could be kept to a minimum. I suppose they could try pulling in a bunch of counterclaims, though I wouldn't know what they could be.

Every time I get my NRA director's ballot I cringe when i see Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist on it. I imagine a lot of people on the left side of things feel the same way whenever Maher calls someone a cunt or a twat or whatever. Useful idiots come in all kinds.

He should have sent a polite letter with the document, laughing at the joke but complimenting Mr. Maher for so generous an offer. Donald could have enclosed a photocopy of his check to the charity, along with a postage-paid envelope, made out to the same charity.

"Judges should have the authority not just to toss out the lawsuits but to fine/otherwise punish the lawyers who brought it."

Attorneys can be disciplined for filing frivolous suits. But it is not evident this suit is frivolous. Mr. Maher made a public offer of a contractual arrangement, which he set forth quite clearly. Mr. Trump accepted that offer in good faith, and carried out his stipulated contractual obligations. Maher might argue that the terms are so ridiculous that no one could have supposed the offer was legitimate. However, Mr. Trump made a similar offer to Mr. Obama, which appears to have been a good faith offer. And Maher did donate a million dollars to the Obama campaign, so he can hardly argue that the amount is outside the realm of the possible. I think Maher better start thinking about a settlement.

Jerome, there is no consideration in this contract, thus it is invalid. Go audit a Contract class in any decent university (let alone ANY law school) and you will discover 1) a contract in jest is not a contract, 2) a contract formed without consideration is not a contract, and 3) the reference was satirical and thus falls under free speech rubric protecting parodies.

Jerome, there is no consideration in this contract, thus it is invalid. Go audit a Contract class in any decent university (let alone ANY law school) and you will discover 1) a contract in jest is not a contract, 2) a contract formed without consideration is not a contract, and 3) the reference was satirical and thus falls under free speech rubric protecting parodies.

Jerome, there is no consideration in this contract, thus it is invalid. Go audit a Contract class in any decent university (let alone ANY law school) and you will discover 1) a contract in jest is not a contract, 2) a contract formed without consideration is not a contract, and 3) the reference was satirical and thus falls under free speech rubric protecting parodies.

Jerome, there is no consideration in this contract, thus it is invalid. Go audit a Contract class in any decent university (let alone ANY law school) and you will discover 1) a contract in jest is not a contract, 2) a contract formed without consideration is not a contract, and 3) the reference was satirical and thus falls under free speech rubric protecting parodies.

1) is true and is probably why the case would end on a motion to dismiss;

2) is not relevant here because the offer specified performance of a particular act (providing a birth certificate) in consideration of the $5 million donation;

3) can you give a cite? If it were a valid contract, I don't see how "free speech" could be relevant at all. Obliging people to live up to contractual terms is simply not a meaningful burden on free speech. If an offer is reasonably understood to be a serious offer, you can't just flout your contractual obligations by saying "But it was satire!" And if the case were dismissed under 1), the fact that it's "satire" is totally irrelevant -- any joke offer (e.g. for a Harrier jet in exchange for Pepsi points) should suffice.

AllenS is on to something. Discourse would be a lot more civil if snooty pricks like Maher and Trump had to meet in the hills of Weehawken, or somesuch, and defend their intemporate remarks physically. And the proceeds of the of the pay-per-view take could be split among the charities of the participants choice.

No reasonable man would have thought this. See the FOX suit against Franken. Republicans are simply humor-handicapped, but I think even most of y'all here understand that Trump is just doing his Trump thing. He practically invented the idea of manufacturing outrage from thin air. And look at how well it's caught on! (Among the right-wing).

Trump doesn't care what he responds to... if there's merit in the response or not - as long as he does it indignantly and FLAMBOYANTLY.

In this respect he is the Ur-Republican.

And no one gives a shit about your stupid pedigree either, Donald.

Think about it. For the suit to have merit, Don would have to prove that reasonable people could have believed his parents were apes.

You all are such buffoons.

This is a classic trick. When an author wants to defame a person in their work, they say "Mr. X, who has a small penis..."

If Mr. X then decides to sue, he must admit that he was accurately depicted in the work, small penis and all.

Trump has got him on the letter of the law. But obviously Maher was only joking.Perhaps this will wake up some on the left to our over litigious society and how the dems special interest group will sue people for the most frivolous things because they can.So, ridiculous lawsuit. Absolutely. Still, I hope Maher feels a bit of discomfort for a while (simply because he's a dick)

This is a lot like the kid that sued Pepsi for not giving him a Jet for 7,000,000 million pepsi points (Because the commercial had a teen landing a harrier jet on his lawn and getting out and smiling and underneath the caption read "Harrier Jet 7,000,000 Pepsi points or something to that effect).Technically Pepsi did have it in their commercial. But did anyone really believe that Pepsi was serious? Ultimately the guy bringing the suit lost, as Trump will.Doesn't mean that they won't bring the suit.

Note though, that I think things like suing to make a Christmas Tree be called a Holiday Tree is a similar example of abusing the tort system and is as ridiculous as Trump's charge.What's the federal holiday on december 25th called again? If you can have a federal holiday (based on religion) and it's not a separation of church and state you can certainly call a tree a christmas tree during that holiday season.

No, what will happen is that he will financially strangle the little shit and make him squeal like a pig. Maher, will settle quickly to avoid bleeding financially because Trump will do that to the little shit.

In bad taste or not, my (admitedly limited) understanding of contract law indicates that Trump is actually correct here. An offer was made, Trump apparently 'accepted', and provided his half. He has every legal right to demand Maher's half of the contract.

This isn't a contract of "goods for sale", so it shouldn't need to be written. Is there any precedent for this sort of thing either way?